No God???

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by CHRISCUNNINGHAM, Mar 24, 2003.

  1. One Guest

    Btw... The whole "thought energy expanding the universe" was my own postulate, in no way connected to the above link.

    Oh, and by the way... *giggle* at me again and I will bitch-slap you into next week...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    Re: Frencheneesz, Red Devil, and Raithere

    I was referring to pleasure and pain. You asked about the imaginary line between This and That. I still have no idea what you're talking about.

    Logic is a method, not an argument. The proof of logic is simply that it works. Like I said, if you have a better method please do tell us, until then I'm willing to use the best method available rather than none at all. Your argument from ignorance is unconvincing.
    What premise?
    And a cause for that effect, and a cause for that effect... infinite reduction which can only be matched by another infinity. The problem being; all infinities are conceptually problematic and the presumption is exactly that, a presumption.

    There is only one answer; something was always moving. God or the Universe itself, it doesn't matter. Neither does what you decide to call it. However, people tend to apply more attributes to the notion God than simply "uncaused cause" so you can look at it either way. Either the attribute of "uncaused cause" is arbitrarily assigned to the notion of God (which is how it occurred historically) or the other attributes (Personality, Intelligence, "Magical" powers, Involvement with human affairs) are arbitrarily assigned to the uncaused cause.

    ~Raithere
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Hehe, you seem to be getting a little confused about the pimp/ho relationship, BITCH. I'm a benevolent pimp though, so I'll let it slide for now.. now you get your bitch ass back out there and bring me my money. Don't forget your your daddy is ho *bitch slap*

    *giggle*

    As pimp, I reserve the right to giggle and whatever the fuck I want. You just worry bout my money, I'll worry about who works whose ass over, dig?

    LOL
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. One Guest

    I came here for a discussion of religion vs science, not your desire to work peoples asses. I'm sure you'll be able to find an appropriate forum for those kind of things if you wish. Having no experience or interest in these acts, I guess I've got nothing to contribute to a conversation with someone as "well travelled" as yourself. Giggle away, it makes a nice change from your usual squealing...
    Goodbye and good luck with that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Depends how often you want to piss your dog off.
     
  9. CHRISCUNNINGHAM The Ethereal Paradigm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    Raithere, and Frencheneesez

    Please, I have read more effective intelligence insults with less grammtical erros, and a better word choice from a three year old.

    "think you prove STUFF"

    I have told you time and time again to refute what I have said......and everytime this is proposed, you completly evade the question and answer with posts like the above.....

    And what is my point???

    Keep reading.



    You said something about an imaginary line, and my main thesis dealt with the fact that concepts are only defined by ther opposite, and in fact are paradoxical.

    Without This there is no That, and vice versa. You cannot have one without the other, the very same way that you cannot have pleasure without pain.

    Great how wonderful, presumptions, those are the key to UNDERDSTANDING......its ok to base logic on them, because they are so definite, well thought out, and complete....its also ok when something has an infinite reduction because it make sense.....

    Those paradoxical things we call asbolutes.

    I don't have a better method, the first step is to understand when you are incorrect.

    But what gets to me is that people except flaws, without any will to improve them. Logic is comletely fallacious, it is paradoxical, and all of the answers one thinks he has is nothing more than folly. The fact that there are a plenum of questions unanswered in our world, and our lives, doesn't affect anyone. All that matters is the frivolity, and the vanity of life... Today.... Not even the seond on the clock of eternity, its a shame that people accept such inane ideas as a contradictory logical system..., for the mere fact that they are too afraid to be left in the dark, to be completely unaware and unknowing of what the meaning behind anything is...

    The big bang, quantum mechcanics, string theory, pure tripe. In the scheme of things it means nothing.

    People, scientists, religions, they all like to think they know, and when someone comes around to tell them otherwise their insularity manifests itself, "everything is close-minded that doesn't agree with what I consider open-minded"...that's all one can say.

    I'm not going a person like that, I am a pure logician, I question anything and everything, I am not a sheep, and believe me there are more sheep in this world than anyone cares to admit.

    I ask the questions that TRULY matter, and everyone passes off these question as nothing more than misguided, trivial..ha.. please, it disgusts me.

    We're born, then we live for a infinitesimal amount of time,we assume that we can't understand everything so don't even try, then we die. That's all you need to know in life...don't worry about anything else.....
     
  10. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    We're born, then we live for a infinitesimal amount of time,we assume that we can't understand everything so don't even try, then we die. That's all you need to know in life...don't worry about anything else.....

    stop projecting your inadequacies onto others
     
  11. Red Devil Born Again Athiest Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996
    As the sun rises on the last day on earth before it becomes too large to sustain life and envelops two thirds of the solar system, mankind shall still be here argueing this question!
     
  12. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    Re: Raithere, and Frencheneesez

    This is a common fallacy, false duality, and is symptomatic of categorization itself. These categorizations exist primarily in the mind, not in reality. It is our method of perception and thought that creates such distinctions. A thing is not defined by it's opposite but by what it is; for instance, what is the opposite of an apple? Those attributes that distinguish an apple from other things are attributes of the object themselves, not of their 'opposites'.

    I would not say they are complete but as long as you realize that presumption is not the same as truth, yes. Ultimately, we all rely upon certain presumptions.
    Then why do you need God to explain the Universe.
    Well, if you're speaking of premises then yes, ultimately we rely upon assumptions that are generally expedient in nature. But, again, logic is merely formalized reason... it is simply a method of thought. It's not that I don't recognize the value of illogical or intuitive thought but when attempting to reach the truth (as far as that is possible) logic has been far more successful.
    I disagree. Philosophy and logic are continually 'advancing', new thoughts; new works... granted the advancement has been slow (particularly in comparison to technology) but I fail to see the fallacy or the paradox. Logic, in fact, illuminates the paradoxes and fallacies in thinking. In fact, a paradox arises in your assertion; if logic is fallacious and paradoxical by what means have you determined that this is so?

    What an absurd statement. What are you doing here then?

    I don't think you've made your case here. While I agree that people have difficulty with the unknown I see philosophy and logic as a means to attempt an understanding... which is, IMO, far more valuable than simply assuming answers.

    To whom? To you? Then fine, don't worry about it... for others, however, trying to discern the secrets of nature is quite important.

    So you propose what alternative? Nihilistic reductionism, absolute relativity?

    You describe a skeptic, a free thinker, not a logician. But I entirely approve, I am myself a skeptic.

    How have you determined what the "TRUELY" important questions are? Can you conclusively demonstrate that the questions that are unimportant to you are unimportant to everyone? If not, I suggest you get off your high-horse. What I find to be important need not conform to your ideals... you're being presumptuous and arrogant.

    Some of us find the questions you ignore to be rather important. If this works for you that's fine but I see nothing here of substance.

    ~Raithere
     
  13. CHRISCUNNINGHAM The Ethereal Paradigm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    "Reality" is NOTHING more than a manifestation of the mind.

    Realtive to a ball without a mind, there is no such thing as existence....

    If you think opposite isn't the correct word, replace it with "what it is not".

    An apple is defined by what it is not, however, "what it is not" is also defined by the apple...

    A=NOT-NOT A

    NOT A=B

    B= NOT NOT B, therefore, NOT A.

    So what is REALLY accomplished?

    I am not sure, it may be just a manifestation of the human seek for purpose. The reasoning behind why there needs to be God...

    Purpose.

    If there is no God, no creation, there is no purpose....

    But then what is purpose.... a necessity..... or an illusion?


    Logic and reason are tantamount. To say logic is formalized reason is in fact redundant. Now I have never said that illogical or intuitive thought is worthy of value in seeking the truth, I am simply saying that the truth is that truth does not exist....paradoxical maybe, but I will get into that in a second....



    A is paradoxical, therefore anything based on A is also paradoxical.

    B is based on A which is paradoxical, therefore B is also paradoxical.

    Ahh, I see someone finally addressed this. As I have been aware of the contradictory nature of the statement "logic is illogical", there is another question that arises....

    What is it that defines/determines the conepts "True" or "False"?

    The laws of Logic?

    Based on what?
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2003
  14. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Skeptical faith in the apparent self evidence of the validity of logic, despite it's paradoxical potential. It is paradoxical only abstractly, thusly there is nothing implicitely declining assertion of paradox.
     
  15. CHRISCUNNINGHAM The Ethereal Paradigm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    No....

    You haven't thought about it enough.

    Terms such paradoxical do no exist until logic is established. My question asks...

    What defines the concepts logical and illogical?
     
  16. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Who are you to say what I've thought about? I may not have answered your question directly, but that is not evidence that I haven't thought about it.

    There does exist the possibility that YOU haven't thought about it enough, as my question answered you on a fundamental level, rather than the more cursory level you suggest. You state "there is NO truth", I say there is truth (regardless of the truth) were there is faith, though it is relative and potentially unreasonable.

    Logic is quite simple. It is already established, but I'll show you, the flawless logician.. how logic is established.
    It's the concept of 1 contrasting with 0 in a symbolic form of true and false. If I speak of two hypothetical resultants of an observation that could potentially result in either 1 or 0.. then I might ask myself questions regarding the relationship between the two. I might even contemplate to potential placeholders for them.

    I might even iterate.

    0, 0
    0, 1
    1, 0
    1, 1

    These my possiblities in the representative system I've constructed. If I contemplate a pairing that might satisfy the condition "I have one AND the other" the only cases would be 0, 0 and 1, 1 resulting in a "true" or "1".

    Blah blah blah. Such is the method for establishing what IS and ISN'T logical.

    Why do you force the question when you likely knew the answer? Why not save me some time and go straight to your point?
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2003
  17. CHRISCUNNINGHAM The Ethereal Paradigm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    I guess I was ambiguous in my statement. When I said logical and illogical I meant True and False.

    What is "True" and what is "False?

    I know the answer, of course, but my goal is to see if you know the answer. If I go straight to my point you will either accept it without thinking, or deny it without thinking. Based on your own preconceptions. If I ask, however, the preconceptions aren't as accessible, and one thinks about it a bit more than he would otherwise. Thus can give me either the same answer as I have concluded, or one that causes me to be on my toes, as I am always hoping for.

    That is why I ask rather than tell.
     
  18. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    That can be easily deduced from my last post. If you say "is it 1 AND 1 = 1" or "is true and true, true" then yes is the answer. You know this, so please grace us with your point.
    That is an insulting and somewhat childish presumption. You fail to account for whom you speak to. There are many people on this site who can actually think for themselves. You should realize that if you alienate your adversary in debate, you risk 'winning' by watching your opponent give you the bird and walk away. If you find every single opponent unworthy, I suppoe that's the proper approach, but that would be obviously short sighted. Sorry for the sidebar but it seemed that could make use of that wisdom.
    So may I ask then, if you're sure you're asking the right questions? It seems to me that you're attempting to argue epistemology through establishing that 'logic isn't absolute'. While true, the level of "how impressed I am at your insight" would correlate with your age, as if you are a thinker... IMO you will eventually reach that conclusion. Hence my reference to 'faith in reason'. Dig?

    Maybe you can throw out a barrage of questions you think are relevant?

    That is why I ask rather than tell.
     
  19. CHRISCUNNINGHAM The Ethereal Paradigm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    Insulting??

    Maybe

    A presumption?

    Hardly. I have seen this time and time again, when I used to "tell" people my point rather than insinuate it. 90% of people are either a hard-core"science and math are always correct and anyone who believes otherwise is a bible thumping twit" or they are a floosy-"the bible tells me anything and everything I need to know, and anyone who belives otherwise is a stubborn and ignorant atheist/scientist who is going to hell".

    So from these experiences I have adapted, and learned that when one asks thoght provoking questions that have a subtle answer, people tend to pull their heads out of what ever orephous it was in, and think before they speak. Not to a large extent, but a more acceptable one....

    I ask also because I am having a debate with you as I am having a debate with myself. And at least in the second case I always win.

    Which is a shame, yet a reoccurance.

    I myself have been alienated in debates many times, and have yet to walk away from any of them.

    Unworthy, please. I find no one unworthy, just misguided. People can be, and usually are so stubborn.


    I think a better word is "hope" in reason.

    Truth is in fact another conjured entity. For in order for there to be truth one has to define truth, yet in order to define truth one must use reasoning, consequently, reasoning requires a defintion of truth. Hence truth can only be assumed to exist, or decreed to exist it cannot, as so many other things, be proven to exist.

    But, why??

    Why does our very method of reasoning, and perception have so many flaws?

    What purpose do these invented anomalies such as numbers, and logic have??

    And who invented them?

    Or is this another question of purpose.....
     
  20. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Okay, so maybe this is irrelevant. *shrug*

    Yes, people like to feel appreciated... especially when you've requested something (I'm not denying that both parties are invested, I'm only saying that the dance is to the benefit of all parties involved).
    Sound enough, but your method can seem somewhat condescending... I don't care, but it's not particularly constructive. Not trying to make a deal of it, so I'll drop it now.
    I exactly disagree, for in "hope" for reason lies weakness. Faith gives us strength.
    It is NOT if you have faith that the truth is true. Why shouldn't it be? What's the difference? Knowledge is tentative anyway. What evidence (I'm not asking for it, I'm just wondering if you truly think you have it, or have just gotten lost at the bottom of the philosophical chasm) do you have that the truth isn't true? Are you sure you aren't just misinterpreting it?
    Maybe I can help you. I too was at the bottom of the chasm when I was about 16. At that point I found faith, but it took me about 12 more years to figure out what my faith IS, and why it's important. For me, I got stuck because I couldn't comprehend the point of existence (yes this IS going somewhere, pardon for the digression). After a long period of internal weirdness it came to me. The point is what I make it. Maybe it's a smoke, or a sunset... maybe it's great sex... but it's dynamic and it's as exactly as I think it is, regardless of the correlation with reality. In a sense now, I see that this experience correlates directly with you falling through the bottom of logic.

    If you are a shark, do you not feed? Does 1 + 1 = 2? Why? It does because you make it so. If you choose not to make it so, it won't be.. but at the cost of correlation with your perception. Sure, you can alter your perception.. but we're a social species. Alter you perception to the point that it is so out of correlation with your stimulus that you cannot relate to the other humans.. and you'll basically run yourself right out of the species.

    Nonconformance is of great value but it comes at a cost. The more nonconforming, the more the cost. Reward is a "sweet spot" in that relationship. Not enough non-conformance and you are a pointless lemming, too much and you're cast aside. Almost everyone has a "sweet spot" in between. You seem to be casting yourself aside because you're reshaping your input to match your madness.

    Let me ask you this: Do you know how to count? If I hold up two fingers and asked you how many there were... would you respond "two"? Why?

    If I ask you: "what is truth?" what would you say? Would you call it circular?

    A circular definition of truth is necessary such that we might codify a contrasting relationship between it and its complement. It is nothing more. It's a label. It means that "in this context, this seems to be what IS". Note the term "seems". To me, this seems to be where you're hung up. Do you know why?
    Good question. It is because that is how we define it. It's a label. Why is blue blue? This creates a "common ground" such that we might seem to be communicating. I'd say that what keeps me from being insane is that I realize that "seems" is all we ever really have. I'd be worried if I thought "seems" was invalid.
    Simply, because it does. Why do you expect otherwise? Why do you expect that there is a 'why' to begin with? It's always right now you know. Why is technically irrelavent. One might add that there is a plausible argument that everything is exactly perfect, thereby nullifying the question. I might ask... is everything in the universe exactly performing its function... right now? If the wheel fell off the truck, was it not its function to do so? How could it have been otherwise when there is exacting evidence to the contrary?
    Purpose is a resultant of will. You speak to the will of god? I would not. I know of no such will. I can only guess at the will of mortals (including myself). IMO however, it's this aspect of it that is so inspiring of humor and love.
    Interesting question. Personally, I think they are properties of "abstract space", discovered and abstracted. The pure form exists.. but by definition of subjectivity cannot EVER be corrupted or conceived. All that can be known to consciousness IS abstraction, thus we are permanently segragate from truth. I think this is the relationship responsible for what most people believe to be god. At least this scenario is a spectre of the reasoning regardiing it. SO they were not invented... they were discovered. Why do they exist? Because apparently the probability of it being so is greater than zero.

    Man I was all over the place. Pardon, it's late and I was feeling "preachy". No offence intended.

    I was really trying to get to the point of why it's FAITH in reason.. rather than hope.. but honestly I'm out of motivation juice... but maybe you can figure it out for yourself... or maybe I'm just full of shit. *shrug*
     
  21. CHRISCUNNINGHAM The Ethereal Paradigm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    I am tired because it is 5 AM out here, so I am going to make this as pithy as possible. I may add to this tomorrow.

    But, as I have noticed in the past we do agree on things, such as multiunverses... but faith in reason I am still a bit skeptical about.

    For faith implies an intuitive knowledge of correctness, however hope, though a weaker from of faith, is in fact a better word.

    Why?

    Because if truth is incorrect we have nothing, no answers,no questions, no existence, and in actuality there cannot even be nothing, for nothing is a product of existence(lack thereof).

    What is beyond all of this, as you said, cannot be corrupted nor can it be conceived.

    It can only be metaphorically represeneted, parallel to a hypercube in 3-dimensional space.

    Thus we HOPE reasoning to be correct in some way or another for the sake of sanity, understanding, and purpose.

    If reasoning proves to be fallacious or nonexistent, then all of these virtues are lost.

    Now don't get me wrong I still have "faith" that reasoning is correct in some elusive fundamental way, for the mere fact that it seems to illogical to be true. But I haven't thought about it fully yet. My ideas are still in the development stage, however I display them as in the conclusive stage so as to allow them to be be challenged at their elementary points. This is the best way one can learn anything.

    But holes in logic still auggests that "The Architect" is more than just a character in a movie.

    The evidence is in fact the lack thereof. There is no way one can prove that truth is true, it can only be assumed to be true.

    This is the evidence that truth has no corrboration, no grip. Just as numbers are equally "created".

    Everything around has a completely unfounded validity, time. numbers, displacement, logic, existence...

    All of these concepts are utterly imaginary. They are not observable unless preceded by the faith/assumption that they already exist.

    We truly do live in The Matrix.....
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2003
  22. moementum7 ~^~You First~^~ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,598
    WOW

    I CANT BELEIVE YOU GUYS HAVE GONE THROUGH 15 PAGES OF CHIT CHAT ENDING UP FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH THEN WHEN YOU BEGAN. NO TRUTHS...NO REALITY...ITS ALL IN YOUR MIND...GIVE ME A BREAK! EXISTENCE EXISTS.THIS IS TRUTH AND IRREFUTABLE.TRUTH ,KNOWLEDGE AND THE ABILITY TO HAVE SELF ESTEEM ALL STEM FROM ACCEPTING THIS AS FACT. PERIOD. OH WAHHH! NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN FOR CERTAIN. FUCK OFF. IF NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN FOR CERTAIN THEN YOU CANT BE CERTAIN THAT NOTHING CAN BE CERTAIN. and if you can be certain of that then....CERTAINTY IS POSSIBLE.simple.existence exists. reality is real. there are no cotradictions in the universe.its only when you place anothers consciousness above your own ,whether its a higher consciousness or a mans(its a mans) allowing a middleman between your consciousness and reality that you will continue to run around in circles, never having perceived reality for yourself. TO BE A MAN YOU MUST NEVER ALLOW ANOTHERS CONSCIOUSNESS TO COME BETWEEN YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS AND REALITY.never take anything on faith.faith kills.seriuosly. it is only faith that can beleive in nothing.its funny how everybody wants to understand and identify theyre existence yet denies the only means of acheiving it. your intellect, your mind. your senses tell you that something is but it is up to your mind to identify it.existence exists people. this is the beging of truth. kudos . www.aynrand.org. fucking amazing yet so simple
     
  23. moementum7 ~^~You First~^~ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,598
    Re: WOW

    everything of value has a price ..the greatsest value is your own mind and your ability to think for your self.which also come with the greatsest price ....an absolute conviction to focus outward towards reality.the only evil is choosing not to think
     

Share This Page